Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee: Annual Review

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. A. Piccolo:

That the second report of the committee, entitled 'Annual Review of the Public Integrity Policy Committee into public integrity and the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption', be noted.

(Continued from 15 February 2017.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:54): I rise to speak on the annual review submitted by the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee into public integrity and the ICAC. It is their second review. We have it because the committee was established at the time of the statutory implementation of the ICAC and the Office for Public Integrity (which is the gatekeeper to it), and it is an important committee of review.

Why do we have it? We have it because, primarily, the parliament determined that if we were going to establish an ICAC and provide that entity as an integrity body with extraordinary powers of surveillance, access to telephone tapping etc. for the purposes of investigation of potential corruption, maladministration and misconduct, then we needed to have an oversight body. So that is why this committee continues to work hard. It receives regular submissions and updates in evidence from the relevant integrity bodies in South Australia and, in particular, investigative work undertaken by the police, the ICAC, the Ombudsman and various other bodies that have responsibility to ensure proper conduct or administration pursuant to their statutory powers.

Interestingly, the recommendations from this report are largely to undertake some statutory reform, although relatively minor—I think I can suggest that—to deal with the tightening of obligations under the warrant powers, in particular to mandate that a copy of any search warrant should be provided to the owner or driver of a vehicle, or a place, depending on the intrusion, and recommendations to amend the Criminal Law Sentencing Act to add in the ICAC as a law enforcement agency for which you get credit if you cooperate as we currently have available to other agencies where an accused or prisoner is cooperative with the authorities, so to speak, and seeking to be incorporated.

They are matters which can probably be relatively easily inserted into legislation, into the principal acts. For example, the sentencing reform currently before the parliament—the rewriting of the Sentencing Act—is a matter that, certainly from our side, we would be happy to talk to the government about. If they are not already taking up the option to deal with that, then it is a relatively straightforward matter, and I think we should try to undertake the recommendations where they are easily able to be applied or implemented.

I read with some curiosity recommendation 6, which was to have a review of whether the ICAC had made any appreciable difference to the prevention or minimisation of corruption, misconduct and maladministration in public administration. We could start with whether it had any influence or made any difference to whether the government should accept unsolicited bids arising out of the Gillman inquiry, and under what circumstances. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.